The Portland daily press., 1887-02-07
The Report Answered.

The committee Of the Legislature on ways
and bridges have determined by vote Of
eight to two that Prlde's and Stroudwater
bridges ought to be maintained by the towns
in which they are situated and not by the
city of Portland. The above statement to
which two of the members Of that committee
have affixed their names as a minority report
is a collection Of some OF the arguments
which were used by counsel for the towns of
Deering and Westbrook at the hearing be-
fore the committee, and shows more clearly
than anything else could have done, that the
division Of opinion in the committee arose
from the fact that the two gentlemen who
signed the minority report utterly failed to
grasp the facts Of the case.
The town of Portland never agreed to sup
port these two bridges, or either OF them.
There is no question Of the obligation Of any
contract in the case. If there was, the courts
would not allow any contract to be broken.
II the counsel who are resisting the action Of
the majority of the committee so strenuous
ly should advise their clients that the city Of
Portland was bound by contract TO maintain
these bridges, the necessity for their services
before the Legislature would be at an end,
for no legislative action could affect the con-
tract. The Legislature cannot abrogate any
contract, under which vested rights have ac-
crued. The counsel for Deering and West
brook did not even assert before the commit
tee that any contract existed binding Port
land to support these bridges.
An examination of the records relating to
the matter will show. as matter of fact, that
there never was any agreement on the part
of the citizens Of Portland to maintain these
two bridges, that the Legislature proceeded,
not according to the assent Of the old town
of Falmouth or of the new town Of Portland
but fixed its own conditions, according TO its
Judgment of what was right and proper at
the time. and provided that Portland should,
from time to time, amend and repair Pride
and Stroudwater bridges. This was simple
act of the Legislature, having no force of a
contract whatever, but merely the force Of
law until it was repealed. II did not pur-
port or pretend to be a perpetual arrange
ment but only to be in force like any other
legislative enactment until the Legislature
should otherwise determine 1t is plain
from the records that this arrangement was
not satisfactory to the citizens of Portland at
the time. Within year from the incorpor-
alton of Portland its citizens applied to have
Stroudwater bridge made a county bridge,
showing in the plainest way that they
never understood they We're under an }
contract to maintain that bridge; as, in fact,
| they were not. Occasionally protests were
| made against 1t from time to time, but grad
ually the town Of Portland assumed the bur
Iat. "A a
| places, Pride's and Strudwater's, so that the
| annual expense of keeping up the bridges
was very much diminished. The early dis
satisfaction subsidized, OF rather ceased to be
| formally expressed, and the customary ex
| penditure upon these two bridges gradually
| came to be made without comment, and 1t Il
i probably true that, for generation or twI
| now, the majority of the citizens OF Portland
| whose attention has not been specially at
traeted to the subject, have not even know
that the city was subjected to the unusua
and extraordinary obligation Of maintainln
| bridges three and six miles from the city lin
its. But in 1880 on the 10th day OF Februa
| ry the City Council ordered that our Sena
tors and Representatives be requested to us
| their influence to secure the passage OF a.
act by the present Legislature relieving til
city of Portland from the care and unJus
burden of maintaining and suppOrtin
Pride's and Str0udwater bridges in the tow
OF Deering, they being entirely foreign TO tn
1
der was passed too late in the session OIL Tn
Legislature to obtain any action at that ses
sion, and so the thing slumbered again 10
another period Of seven years. There wa
never any assent on the part Of the people
| Portland to the arrangement as origlnali
made. A town does not legally have th
privilege Of asserting to, or dissenting iron
| the act which Incorporates It, Ihe LeglsE
ture prescribes its own terms. The histor
of the whole 100 years shows dlssatisiaetlO
on the part of Portland with the tern
which were fixed by the Legislature, but IN
support of the bridges gradually became
matter Of habit with the city, and the who
thing passed along with only an occasions
protest and without any actual effort TO g
rid of the burden.
But the changes which have occurred
To these two roads are such as to render 1t
mere act of absurd injustice to continue
require the city to support them. Since u
opening of Vaughan's bridge (0f which u
CITY supports three-fourths) In 1854, StrOu
water bridge has ceased to have any speci
relation with the city of Portland. 1t wa
!, before that time, the great highway fro
! | Portland to the west, the only sta
, road, and, down to that time the
[ was some reason, perhaps, for cont
| uing the burden of supporting it upon
, | City of Portland, but it is now a mere Loo
J | road, having no more interest or importan
than an ordinary highway in any town.